Guns are dirty, icky things that I don't want to touch and can't imagine any other well-adjusted adults indulging either.

Listen, I'm with you 100%. Tax the bastards and make them register their degenerate lifestyle with the government like sex offenders. Just think about the evil things they could be doing and really let them have it before they can commit the act.

It always makes me sleep easier at night.

I can't believe you are still trying this. Give it a rest, man, nobody's going to come in here and fulfil your liberal fantasy of eveiryone being afraid of guns.

Oh, I don't care about what others think.

Its other people who have to abide by what I think is safe or adequate. I mean, do you really expect the average redneck (which I am fairly confident that all gun nuts are part of) to know what's good for them?

They need people like me to tell the government to tell them what is good for them.

The_Sponge:cameroncrazy1984: Sounds like Glock will have to manufacture a new magazine, then.

Nope....because Congress is not interested in passing ridiculous gun laws....like the ones you are suggesting.

Ridiculous? NY State passed a very similar gun law (actually, it went further than the one I suggested by banning certain types of features on certain weapons) and it was recently upheld as Constitutional. Doesn't seem so ridiculous to me.

Fark It:Right, but most ardent gun control advocates want to use "permits" the same way that the South used poll taxes and tests during Jim Crow.

According to whom?

I live in Michigan. Overwhelming majority of my male relatives hunt. Of the lot of us, two own businesses in Detroit, one works in the city full time, three periodically, two are in school. (4 of those 8 own guns, that I'm aware of anyway. 2 have concealed permits but don't carry 24/7.)

Last discussion that came up at Thanksgiving... everyone is for some of those common sense measures (read: universal background checks, maybe limits on weapons you really don't need if you're actually buying for hunting or self-defense).

I'm *pretty* sure my family doesn't have a masochistic streak and everyone didn't agree knowing that their guns (and venison and pheasant and duck) would be taken away if it was ever put in place.

Its other people who have to abide by what I think is safe or adequate. I mean, do you really expect the average redneck (which I am fairly confident that all gun nuts are part of) to know what's good for them?

They need people like me to tell the government to tell them what is good for them.

You are quite persistent, I'll give you that. Got anymore outdated liberal stereotypes to toss out here while you're at it? Maybe say you eat nothing but granola and wear tie-dye and wear patchouli?

cameroncrazy1984:Fark It: You said "high capacity" magazines are not vital for self-defense. I did not ask you why cops used firearms, I asked you why they use "high capacity magazines" when they aren't vital for self-defense.

Because they use firearms in other applications than self-defense. I don't know how I could've made that any more clear. It's like asking why the Army uses high-capacity magazines when they aren't vital for self-defense.

Oh, so in "tactical situations" cops don't use their guns for self-defense? I'm failing to see your logic. You're saying that cops don't use their guns for self-defense? Or defense of other? And why bring the Army into it? Cops are not soldiers. They're civilians like you and me.

It can lead to confiscation.....just ask owners of SKS sporter rifles who had them taken away in California.

Specifically due to the fact that they were registered? Or due to the fact that these people registered illegal weapons?

As near as I can tell, California passed a law banning certain types of firearms but under the then-current interpretation of California law, owners of existing ones were allowed to keep them but they were required to be registered. Later the interpretation changed and the registered owners were ordered to surrender them.

Essentially the same thing has happened in other states and localities over the years. Gun owners asserting registration can lead to confiscation are not doing so without reason.

StreetlightInTheGhetto:I live in Michigan. Overwhelming majority of my male relatives hunt. Of the lot of us, two own businesses in Detroit, one works in the city full time, three periodically, two are in school. (4 of those 8 own guns, that I'm aware of anyway. 2 have concealed permits but don't carry 24/7.)

Last discussion that came up at Thanksgiving... everyone is for some of those common sense measures (read: universal background checks, maybe limits on weapons you really don't need if you're actually buying for hunting or self-defense).

I'm *pretty* sure my family doesn't have a masochistic streak and everyone didn't agree knowing that their guns (and venison and pheasant and duck) would be taken away if it was ever put in place.

This is one of the reasons I like living in the north. Our gun owners are generally reasonable, they are OK with background checks and the like, and they don't hoard guns and ammunition like the apocalypse is coming.

cameroncrazy1984:The_Sponge: cameroncrazy1984: Sounds like Glock will have to manufacture a new magazine, then.

Nope....because Congress is not interested in passing ridiculous gun laws....like the ones you are suggesting.

Ridiculous? NY State passed a very similar gun law (actually, it went further than the one I suggested by banning certain types of features on certain weapons) and it was recently upheld as Constitutional. Doesn't seem so ridiculous to me.

If you want to talk about states, then I'm glad that my state (WA) doesn't have a bunch of bed-wetters like you to pass our firearms laws.

Kensey:As near as I can tell, California passed a law banning certain types of firearms but under the then-current interpretation of California law, owners of existing ones were allowed to keep them but they were required to be registered. Later the interpretation changed and the registered owners were ordered to surrender them.

Essentially the same thing has happened in other states and localities over the years. Gun owners asserting registration can lead to confiscation are not doing so without reason.

So essentially they had been grandfathered in (meaning they owned illegal firearms) and the interpretation changed to no longer grandfather them in.

super_grass:cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Hey. You might be afraid to confront these gun nuts, but I'm not.

When I see people with large firearms, I see potential massacres in the making. No, I don't buy the whole law abiding citizen bullshiat either. Whenever I have a thought about high capacity containers or high powered rifles I think about how easy it would be for me to turn a crowd of people into hamburger or act out that scene from Schindler's list if I wanted to.

That is why there is no place for assault rifles in the civilized world.

My favorite thing is that you just continue to build and build and build this strawman hoping to find someone who agrees with it so that you can say "Ha! Got you!"

Good luck with that.

Why do you keep saying that it's a strawman?

Listen, I'm with you, okay? I think about gun crime like Rick Santorum thinks about gay sex and I am absolutely appalled by it. That's why I want tough restrictions and registration requirements and openly denounce anyone who defend their shall we say eccentric way of live as sissies or sexually maladjusted.

So, you want tougher laws on a type of crime that has been on a severe drop for the last two decades regardless of any legislation on the books? You are obviously easily swayed by by news reports, and apparently easily panicked.

Pop quiz: how many hits are required to be fired to be certain of taking down a single assailant? Two assailants? Three? Not total shots fired including misses, I'm just talking about rounds that fully penetrate the bad guy.

Its other people who have to abide by what I think is safe or adequate. I mean, do you really expect the average redneck (which I am fairly confident that all gun nuts are part of) to know what's good for them?

They need people like me to tell the government to tell them what is good for them.

You are quite persistent, I'll give you that. Got anymore outdated liberal stereotypes to toss out here while you're at it? Maybe say you eat nothing but granola and wear tie-dye and wear patchouli?

How is that a stereotype? People don't have the right to have something just because they like it, especially things that I deem harmful. Luckily for me there are all kinds of down to earth, common sense legislation that won't be shot down by SCOTUS that will lets me enact my will on them. The fact that similar laws are not ruled unconstitutional just validates my correctness.

Filthy civilians who typically respond to threats alone, without body armor, and have a police response time of 15+ minutes (not to mention the fact that the police are under no legal obligation to protect you) should be limited to 7 rounds.

cameroncrazy1984:Kensey: As near as I can tell, California passed a law banning certain types of firearms but under the then-current interpretation of California law, owners of existing ones were allowed to keep them but they were required to be registered. Later the interpretation changed and the registered owners were ordered to surrender them.

Essentially the same thing has happened in other states and localities over the years. Gun owners asserting registration can lead to confiscation are not doing so without reason.

So essentially they had been grandfathered in (meaning they owned illegal firearms) and the interpretation changed to no longer grandfather them in.

Most people would phrase that as "they legally owned those firearms, but then because of changing interpretation that ownership was labeled illegal".

cameroncrazy1984:Kensey: As near as I can tell, California passed a law banning certain types of firearms but under the then-current interpretation of California law, owners of existing ones were allowed to keep them but they were required to be registered. Later the interpretation changed and the registered owners were ordered to surrender them.

Essentially the same thing has happened in other states and localities over the years. Gun owners asserting registration can lead to confiscation are not doing so without reason.

So essentially they had been grandfathered in (meaning they owned illegal firearms) and the interpretation changed to no longer grandfather them in.

Yes, because it's not confiscation if it's an "illegal" gun. Definitely not confiscation if you require registration and then change the definition of a "legal" gun.

I have a question. Is there such a thing as an unconstitutional gun law, in your view? At what point would you say "I think this goes too far?"

cameroncrazy1984:Kensey: As near as I can tell, California passed a law banning certain types of firearms but under the then-current interpretation of California law, owners of existing ones were allowed to keep them but they were required to be registered. Later the interpretation changed and the registered owners were ordered to surrender them.

Essentially the same thing has happened in other states and localities over the years. Gun owners asserting registration can lead to confiscation are not doing so without reason.

So essentially they had been grandfathered in (meaning they owned illegal firearms) and the interpretation changed to no longer grandfather them in.

They didn't *start* owning illegal firearms. The SKS used to be 100% perfectly legal. That was changed, and when it was changed, the state knew where to come knocking to make their owners give them up.

If a previously-legal gun was suddenly outlawed and then confiscated, why should they not see that as a slippery slope? Should they just shrug and accept it as a price they have to pay for owning a gun that the government could outlaw and confiscate any one of their legal arms?

Pop quiz: how many hits are required to be fired to be certain of taking down a single assailant? Two assailants? Three? Not total shots fired including misses, I'm just talking about rounds that fully penetrate the bad guy.

Depends on the caliber. .40/.45? Probably 1 or 2. If you have a round in the spout that gives you 8 tries. If you can't hit center mass twice in eight tries then you are better off just throwing the gun at the assailant.

NEDM:They didn't *start* owning illegal firearms. The SKS used to be 100% perfectly legal. That was changed, and when it was changed, the state knew where to come knocking to make their owners give them up.

They were grandfathered in, meaning they owned illegal firearms. It's not my fault that they decided to keep owning them after they became illegal. Especially when apparently the interpretation of the law was quite open.

Pop quiz: how many hits are required to be fired to be certain of taking down a single assailant? Two assailants? Three? Not total shots fired including misses, I'm just talking about rounds that fully penetrate the bad guy.

Depends on the caliber. .40/.45? Probably 1 or 2. If you have a round in the spout that gives you 8 tries. If you can't hit center mass twice in eight tries then you are better off just throwing the gun at the assailant.

Then why not limit magazine size to two?

/in addition to being an expert on gun laws, cam is now an expert on ballistics

Fark It:Oh, so in "tactical situations" cops don't use their guns for self-defense? I'm failing to see your logic. You're saying that cops don't use their guns for self-defense? Or defense of other? And why bring the Army into it? Cops are not soldiers. They're civilians like you and me.

When did I say that Cops do not use their weapons for self-defense? I simply stated that they are used for applications other than civilian firearms. Hence the ability and availability of magazines that are better-suited for law-enforcement and/or military applications.

super_grass:cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: But what actually happened isn't important. It's how we must feel. We need to feel outraged, we need to feel that something must be done, we need to demand immediate action regardless of detractors who want us to get off the emotional high and strike while the iron is hot.

That's what matters.

Awesome strawman, dude.

No, it's not a strawman.

Don't you just feel the burning urge to remind people in every gun thread that this could have been a classroom full of children? Don't you think about all the ways that you can massacre innocents in intricate scenarios with all the weapons that the government is too lazy to ban or restrict from you?

This is not about petty constitutional hair splitting or arcane statistics or technical functionalities guns. This is about making sure that nobody has the means to make the worst things that you can possibly imagine a person can possibly do into reality.

The_Sponge:Arthen: It's almost like the second ammendment was written before weapons technology advanced beyond muzzle loading muskets.

And your point is?

The First Amendment was written before computers, the internet, and Fark.com.

A literal reading of the Constitution including accompanying texts concludes that the goal was a militia capable of putting down a standing army should it be instituted. That doesn't mean civilians should be able to own assault weapons, that means we should have cutting edge military hardware like predator drones with hell fire missiles. The fact that's a right means should you be unable to afford a predator the government is obligated to provide it for you.

Where will today's mass shootings happen? What will the shooter use to exercise his God given Second Amendment right? Does anyone on either side of the debate have a convincing argument left? It's your daily mass shooting thread

No worries. I was genuinely curious, as I my Tiger-style Google-Fu is usually pretty strong, but I couldn't find anything about the legality of barrels shorter than 30" (especially considering that is pretty long as far as shotguns go).

cameroncrazy1984: Or, well, it should be if it's a legal shotgun with a 30" barrel.

Where have you heard that it's illegal to have a barrel shorter than 30"?

Well, at least in NY it is. I am actually not sure about Maryland. I assumed that was a common regulation.

These are the types of people making gun laws. Don't know jack shiat about them, but they know they are going to make a law against them. NY's SAFE Act is one of the most retarded acts of gun control ever made (and confiscation is beginning in NYC because of it already), and is nothing more than a pompous asshole governor's grandstanding and whoring out the Newtown incident. "Hey, let's outlaw a firearm that is used in less than 2% of gun crimes in the nation, and pass it in the middle of the night before the unlicensed can even review it!". That sounds totally like an honest-to-goodness, on-the-level, cares-what-the-public-thinks law, right there. I hope Cuomo drowns in a shallow puddle.

HeadLever:cameroncrazy1984: If you can't hit center mass twice in eight tries then you are better off just throwing the gun at the assailant.

Assuming one assailant of course. I see you failed to address the point about multiple assailants.

How often does a civilian defend himself against two armed assailants at once? Especially a situation in which he must shoot both? Please provide a real-world example. If two guys are running at you with guns then it doesn't matter if you have 7 rounds or 70, if you're not under cover you're dead anyway.

Arthen:It's almost like the second ammendment was written before weapons technology advanced beyond muzzle loading muskets.

The dead white guys who wrote the Constitution were well familiar with rifles and handguns. It's quite likely they knew of revolvers (early forms of which date to the 1500s) and repeating rifles, which were fairly well-known in Europe from the late 1600s and used in warfare before the Constitution was written.

More to the point they were not complete idiots who thought their own era was the end state of technology, since at least one of them was an accomplished inventor.

Dr Jack Badofsky:These are the types of people making gun laws. Don't know jack shiat about them, but they know they are going to make a law against them. NY's SAFE Act is one of the most retarded acts of gun control ever made (and confiscation is beginning in NYC because of it already)

Yep, you can be safely ignored since you have no idea what's going on.

cameroncrazy1984:HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: If you can't hit center mass twice in eight tries then you are better off just throwing the gun at the assailant.

Assuming one assailant of course. I see you failed to address the point about multiple assailants.

How often does a civilian defend himself against two armed assailants at once? Especially a situation in which he must shoot both? Please provide a real-world example. If two guys are running at you with guns then it doesn't matter if you have 7 rounds or 70, if you're not under cover you're dead anyway.